• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Kavenaugh 1. Soros 0

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
8,439
Likes
16,986
Location
North Carolina
#1
Apparently foreign interference is going to be treated as foreign ;)

soros’ open Society and affiliates DO NOT HAVE first amendment rights. This opens up RICO and other tactics to squash bezzelbub.

should be able to stop all the local politician funding crap (Omar’, the Mo DA etc,)


E552EC75-F290-4DC4-B5E8-47FE126D698A.jpeg
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
52,832
Likes
99,810
Location
Rocky Mountains
#2
Using loopholes our laws to skirt around the law...
 

EO 11110

CENSORSHIP KILLS
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
17,396
Likes
15,664
Location
clown world
#4
robert kennedy tried that with same/similar. see what the led to
 

Bigfoot

Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
3,927
Likes
4,965
#5
should be able to stop all the local politician funding crap
I deeply despise Soros, but let's be careful here. If you believe that foreign entities shouldn't be allowed to donate money to American election campaigns, I'll agree with that. But, what the hell does that have to do with the 1st Amendment?

Rights don't exist because of government. Governments don't grant rights. Now, if the court had said the US government does not have the jurisdiction to enforce US laws outside of the borders, then that makes sense. But, that's not what they wrote.

To me it sounds like the court is issuing police state powers to the US Government outside of the US border. Or to put it another way, outside of the US border, the government doesn't need to follow the Constitution. Let that sink in for a moment.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, and someone can explain it to me, but this looks to me like yet another power grab. Don't forget, Kavanagh was the architect of the Patriot Act.
 
Last edited:

Alton

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
6,638
Likes
13,583
Location
Michiana
#6
Here's the text of the ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf

Here's the substance and reasoning of the ruling: (emphasis added)

The responsible government organizations petitioned the Supreme Court, which accepted to hear the case in August 2019. Oral arguments were heard on May 5, 2020, part of the first set of arguments to be held by teleconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Justice Elana Kagan, who took no part in the 2013 decision, also did not participate here.

The Court issued its opinion on June 29, 2020. The 5–3 majority decision reversed the Second Circuit. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the major opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh wrote that two factors affect the Court's judgment. First, the foreign affiliates are legally separate entities from the American NGOs, and secondly, "because foreign organizations operating abroad do not possess constitutional rights, those foreign organizations do not have a First Amendment right to disregard the policy requirement."
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
8,439
Likes
16,986
Location
North Carolina
#7
Speech, in this case is advertising in the US market. The way they’ve been dodging the law is to claim that donations are speech. I didn’t see any power grab attempt as in trying to regulate what people did or do or say overseas (Which I’d oppose)

whats Ludicrous is the 3 years we’ve been hearing about Russian interference while Democrats have been stuffing their pockets full of Soros campaign donations - and using it to elect marxists.
 

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
49,733
Likes
87,053
Location
Earth
#8
Now, if the court had said the US government does not have the jurisdiction to enforce US laws outside of the borders, then that makes sense. But, that's not what they wrote.
Here's the text of the ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
First, the foreign affiliates are legally separate entities from the American NGOs, and secondly, "because foreign organizations operating abroad do not possess constitutional rights, those foreign organizations do not have a First Amendment right to disregard the policy requirement."
That's exactly what they wrote. The SOTUS only has the power to rule on the COTUS and the 1st is an article within that document. They cannot rule on rights granted outside the borders. What part don't you get here?
 

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
49,733
Likes
87,053
Location
Earth
#9
Speech, in this case is advertising in the US market. The way they’ve been dodging the law is to claim that donations are speech. I didn’t see any power grab attempt as in trying to regulate what people did or do or say overseas (Which I’d oppose)

whats Ludicrous is the 3 years we’ve been hearing about Russian interference while Democrats have been stuffing their pockets full of Soros campaign donations - and using it to elect marxists.
Funny how that shit works, huh?
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
8,439
Likes
16,986
Location
North Carolina
#10
They are lazy, if you want to know what they are Doing, just listen to what the are accusing others of
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
11,259
Likes
21,717
#12
51K views....... they tell 10 people & everyone knows. BOOM! Yea............ for us it's more like a pop.

 

Voodoo

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,200
Likes
2,919
Location
Deep Underground Bunker
#14
I deeply despise Soros, but let's be careful here. If you believe that foreign entities shouldn't be allowed to donate money to American election campaigns, I'll agree with that. But, what the hell does that have to do with the 1st Amendment?

Rights don't exist because of government. Governments don't grant rights. Now, if the court had said the US government does not have the jurisdiction to enforce US laws outside of the borders, then that makes sense. But, that's not what they wrote.

To me it sounds like the court is issuing police state powers to the US Government outside of the US border. Or to put it another way, outside of the US border, the government doesn't need to follow the Constitution. Let that sink in for a moment.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, and someone can explain it to me, but this looks to me like yet another power grab. Don't forget, Kavanagh was the architect of the Patriot Act.
Corps shouldnt have 1st amendment rights because you know, their just file folders. But that's another ruling that went really poorly.
 

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
49,733
Likes
87,053
Location
Earth
#15